to want HATE campaigns against foreigners in the popular Press to stop...

All newspapers sometimes carry news that turns out to be lies/ misinformation, so hard to tell if it is actually on purpose, but statements are given and info passed to journalists which then gets printed, are sometimes just wrong.You cannot just believe all that you read in any paper.

If those papers endorse and support and constantly encourage rascism, sexism and every 'ism' imaginable- and people buy the papers because this is what they want to read - then yes- why are you so surprised but some want to strongly distance themselves from those views and wish others would do too.

This is not arrogant, or hollier than though - it is being human and having empathy. But you won't see it because you don't want to see it ...

I am about to blow my top and get quite rude- so will sign off for a while. Just can't do this anymore. And yes, I do feel I live on another planet- I certainly wish I could move to one right now.

That doesn't answer my question. Do you agree that it is acceptable for the press to print lies as fact. All I want is a yes/no answer please.

Because, for ages now on Gransnet, there are a small number of posters who constantly denigrate both newspapers and what they think of other posters who read certain newspapers.There have been thread after thread in the last few years like this.
These posters demonstrate how holier than thou they themselves are, and it is quite apparent that they think that they personally are a cut above in every way.This IS arrogance, although they themselves will never see it.

No one is telling people what paper they should/shouldn't read. The argument is 'do newspapers have the right to print lies disguised as fact'? Can you honestly say that the freedom of the press means carte blanche to print lies as fact? POGS; why are you defending these publications? Please explain? . I really don't understand .

well THAT was bloody arrogant POGS

It is bloody arrogant to make an assumption that YOU are superior intellectually because of the paper you read.

It is bloody arrogant to assume that everybody has no right to read a paper YOU personally hate with avengence.

It is bloody arrogant to belittle, name call others who do not agree with YOUR interpretations of what a paper is saying.

It is bloody arrogant to believe YOUR view has to be the ONLY VIEW permissible.

It is bloody arrogant to assume those who read the paper YOU hate do not have enough of a brain to decide for themselves if they too find a particular article obnoxious, ill thought out also.

It is bloody arrogant to think YOU are not being arrogant.

Someone else posted the same picture but used photoshop to change the side in the lorry and the switch view from the window - very simple to do btw.

As said, one explanation was that they were taken in the large lay-bys on the M20 - where they stop to sleep or eat their sandwich, etc- and phone their boss and family before they set off again. Which is NOT saying that they do NOT use the phone when driving- but on the M20, it is not surprising that, out of the 1000s of drivers, including HGV drivers- who phone at the wheel, there were many foreign drivers on that route- as it is the Mway from Dover and Folkestone.

No; that front page was just a misinterpretation of the truth. Quite mild by their standards therefore probably not needing a minute apology buried in the depths of the paper several days later.

So one exceptional act excuses everything else- surely not. Or perhaps it's true, after all Mussolini made the trains run on time, or so they say.

Ah, I see! So they do get things right sometimes then. As Jalima said, they were instrumental in the search for justice for Stephen Lawrence.

I've been talking about their headlines in general Ceesnan,not the phone one. Apologies for misleading you.

How can you say that they print "blatant lies" Tegan , when they ARE using their phones?

Thank you jalima for reminding 'some' people how instrumental the DM were in putting some of the pond life who committed that awful murder behind bars.

Granjura Below is part of the first para of my last post on this subject

I happily admit to reading the Daily Mail and the i, oh, and the Observer and Daily Telegraph at weekends. Some days I read the Guardian instead or as well.

With what am I complicit?

BUT IT'S ON THE FRONT PAGE!!!YOU DON'T HAVE TO OPEN THEM UP AND READ THEM. Why are you defending them? I don't understand. What is so good about newspapers printing blatant lies??

But - how do people who say certain papers peddle racism and intolerance know what is in them - if they are so disgusted by these papers they would not read them, surely?

Just puzzled really

And I don't think that Stephen Lawrence's parents would necessarily agree either:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570722/Daily-Mail-page-turning-point-says-mother-Stephen-Lawrence.html

I realla don't think it is either absurd, or arrogant- to say that if you choose to give your money, day in, day out- to a paper owner and its staff- that peddles racism and intolerance. At some point, you endorse what they say with your custom - and it does make you (one) complicit.

You wouldn't bother to buy it otherwise.

Clear- as a bell.

all this 'damning' of newspapers and what people read or don't read is beyond absurd, and yes, it's arrogant too.Put a sock in it.

So - what do you want to do trisher?
Shall we go and picket the offices of newspapers you dislike?

Any ideas?

^It perhaps indicates the little respect (if any) I have for someone who constantly adds to their post the idea that they are in some way better than the rest of us because they care about refugees and Aleppo.

so sorry, I will remember in future if I ever want to repeat your words.

And you haven't said why you feel the need to constantly post about these things.
Constantly post?

Constantly:
continuously over a period of time;
Really??

Of course I read the bloody article - do stop being so sneering.

So the only point you were making is that you damn the Mail for what it publshes now. Well, we knew that! Why rake up the past?

That's what the Guardian article is saying, and I agree with it.

Please finish the quote Jalima if you want to use my words

because they care about refugees and Aleppo

And you haven't said why you feel the need to constantly post about these things.
I too would like to see a better world and part of that involves condemning behaviour which results in some people being mistreated and castigated because of their race, belief or country of origin. Part of being compassionate is putting yourself in the position of those who are targeted, whether it be in this country or elsewhere. It isn't much use feeling sorry for people in Aleppo when your neighbour is being threatened and abused.

Yes, I did say so, clearly, I do wonder if you actually read the article yourself? It concludes:

The point is: damn the Mail if you will for what it publishes now.

Which was the point indeed.

Well, if you say so - I suppose the Mirror is still the same as well, is it? Despite being a Labour rag?